# Global Warming progressing far faster than previously thought **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 17, 2014, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056 "2014-01-17T13:47:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 26
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/501 "2014-02-18T19:42:40Z")
(feeling all smug since I just watered my new trees, and haven’t used an ounce of fossil fuels for over 24 hours now) Yes, the pump is powered by nuclear energy. So is everything else. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/502 "2014-02-18T19:58:52Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Sure, if you think a scientist like Richard Alley has not consulted other experts, it is not tripe. No, I think it’s tripe to use public sanitation investment as an example proving that a global campaign to restrict energy to thwart global warming is reasonable and do-able. The incentives are totally different. You might as well argue that we can find the political will to stop global warming because we found the political will to buy televisions and iPads. If I wasn’t clear before: Public sanitation was an immediate benefit to the people being asked to pay for it. THAT is why the rapid changeover happened. The same thing happened when cars came along - the public happily paid for massive infrastructure changes - because they received immediate, tangible benefits from it. Climate change mitigation, on the other hand, requires immediate sacrifice from people who will never see its benefits, or if they do it won’t be for decades. There is no precedent at all for any kind of global agreement along those lines, and all the evidence we have says that it will never happen. Hell, just look at what happened with the Kyoto treaty: Not only did the signatories fail to meet their commitments, they were worse than the U.S. when it comes to CO2 increases. Understand this simple point: Countries do not enter agreements that are against their best interests, unless they are doing so for immediate political benefit and intend to break them as soon as it’s desirable to do so. And it’s going to be damned hard to convince Russia that it’s in her best interest to restrict fossil fuels, since Russia is a cold country that makes a significant part of its income from fossil fuel exports. It’s going to be damned hard to convince China or India that spending more for energy is a good idea when they are in the midst of a shift from a low-energy agrarian economy to a high-energy modern economy. And if you can’t get big players like that aboard, all your taxes, caps, and credits will be for naught. Just like opposing the Keystone pipeline did not keep all that Canadian dirty oil in the ground - it just shifted it to China, where pollution controls are lax and the energy footprint of products is higher. You probably made the problem worse by opposing the Keystone pipeline, just as the green movement made climate change worse by supporting ethanol when the science and economics of it made no sense. Now you’ve got a permanent industry subsidized with billions of dollars annually - one that has woven its rent-seeking fingers through the Congress and is now squeezing money from taxpayers to line its own pockets while doing nothing to help the environment. > [@](#): > > But then this is tripe so there is no need to continue, it does not say that, Richard Alley and the group he is representing reports in their Earth the operator’s manual site that they are talking about using current and just made technology. You know, just because ‘experts’ say something is true doesn’t make it so. The economy is a complex adaptive system, and honest economists will admit their limitations when it comes to predicting how it will respond to inputs - especially decades into the future. Have you already forgotten Christina Romer’s claim that the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%? Would you like to go back and look at how wrong economists in 2006 were in predicting what the economy would look like in 2014? Or how wrong they were in 1996 in predicting what the economy would look like in 2006? Or any other economic forecast well into the future? Plenty of ‘experts’ in the 70’s said that there would be global famines by now. In fact, I think you could say there was even a consensus that overpopulation was a massive threat and that action needed to be taken. Anyone who says he can predict what the economy will look like in 20 or 50 years based on some product or technology today is selling something. We can’t even predict what it will be in the next quarter. Just for fun, go look at how many times the headline for economic news contains the word ‘unexpectedly’. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/503 "2014-02-18T20:25:35Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > The current global temp has not been increasing. So you keep saying. Yet last November was globally [the warmest on record](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/11), December was[tied for third warmest on record](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/12), and the entire year of 2013 was tied with 2003 for fourth-warmest on record. The warmest year on record was 2006. So there’s no absence of recent warming; saying that the temperature gradient for the past ~15 years is less than what it was during most of the latter half of the 20th century is not the same as claiming that the temperature has not been increasing. But what is also misleading about the line of argument is the implication that there is something fundamentally wrong with energy budget calculations or even AGW theory itself; the fact is, estimates of climate sensitivity have not changed, and CO2 forcings have only increased. It’s a line of argument that seems to suggest that its proponents are looking for [this sort of explanation](http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/infernojones/skeptic_forcing1.png). 😛 ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/504 "2014-02-18T20:40:02Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > So you keep saying. Yet **last November** was globally [the warmest on record](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/11), **December was** [tied for third warmest on record](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/12), and the **entire year of 2013** was tied with 2003 for fourth-warmest on record. The warmest year on record **was 2006**. So there’s no absence of recent warming; saying that the temperature gradient for the past ~15 years is less than what it was during most of the latter half of the 20th century is not the same as claiming that the temperature has not been increasing. But what is also misleading about the line of argument is the implication that there is something fundamentally wrong with energy budget calculations or even AGW theory itself; the fact is, estimates of climate sensitivity have not changed, and CO2 forcings have only increased. (Bold added to emphasize cherry picking) The IPCC and it’s feeder organizations are looking for an explanation as to why the global temp has “paused”. Have you explained your reasoning to them? Maybe they really don’t need to be spending all the time and effort looking for something that you so easily dismiss? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/505 "2014-02-18T20:58:42Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Other college level educators do not. No, other people do disagree. Many researchers (although I have no idea why they must be “college level educators,” is that important?) would agree that total solar irradiation and consequent surface insolation has remained essentially constant over the past decades. Why are the researchers who support your argument more reliable than those who disagree? Serious question. > [@](#): > > You and the other warmers I am not a “warmer” whatever that is. > [@](#): > > seem to think the IPCC somehow “does science” and somehow overturned all knowledge of anything related to the sun. I have never said anything of the sort. > [@](#): > > That is foolish and wrong. Since I have never made the claim, I will assume you’re not being deliberately insulting. > [@](#): > > Your idiot blogs are also wrong. I have no blogs, idiot or otherwise. I just want to know why the researchers who support your argument are automatically more reliable than those who disagree? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/506 "2014-02-18T21:12:42Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > No, I think it’s tripe to use public sanitation investment as an example proving that a global campaign to restrict energy to thwart global warming is reasonable and do-able. The incentives are totally different. You might as well argue that we can find the political will to stop global warming because we found the political will to buy televisions and iPads. > > If I wasn’t clear before: Public sanitation was an immediate benefit to the people being asked to pay for it. THAT is why the rapid changeover happened. The same thing happened when cars came along - the public happily paid for massive infrastructure changes - because they received immediate, tangible benefits from it. > > Climate change mitigation, on the other hand, requires immediate sacrifice from people who will never see its benefits, or if they do it won’t be for decades. Clean air and less contamination are intermediate benefits too, you are not very convincing there. As pointed before a lot of unrest caused by crop issues and failures due to droughts are already affecting many. What Richard Alley and other refer to is that there is no good excuse to prevent or stop the needed changes. Unless you assume that forever all the people will be kept in the dark about the need to do more efforts to control our emissions what you are talking about is just an affirmation of a self fulfilling bad prophesy (people will not ever willfully pay for the change), I prefer to be more optimist, but what you will get is that people that you support will be ignored then as they are more a part of the problem rather than part of the solution. As Scott Denning pointed at a Heartland Institute meeting: > **[Scott Denning: Reaching Across the Abyss](https://skepticalscience.com/scott-denning-reaching-across-abyss-iccc6-heartland-conference.html)** > > Going virtually unnoticed in the climate science world (except for skeptic blogs and certain fair minded mainstream scientists), from June 30 - July 1, 2011, an international conference on the subject of climate change took place in Washington DC,... > [@](#): > > His talk began by hitting three messages to resonate with the audience. Paraphrasing, they are 1) Everyone should understand how the climate works - meandering over minute details is a waste of time. Why? 2) Because the climate will change and policy WILL be enacted, eventually. How does this matter to his audience? 3) The political right has been virtually non-existent in its participation in establishing what that policy will be. > > In an earlier post published here at SkS, my message for Libertarians was essentially the same. > > > [@](#): > > > > I would suggest they research real free market solutions that deal with the first principles of Libertarian thought. Otherwise, this policy argument will move on without them. It’s time for Libertarians to get on board and bring their principles along too. > [@](#): > > the Earth will be going under significant change, unparalleled in recorded human history. People will develop policy to deal with these changes. > > The point to Denning’s talk was to lay out a challenge for those who advocate for the free market. And that challenge is to develop effective solutions that match the breadth the problem ahead of us. According to one of his final slides: > > > [@](#): > > > > Who will advocate for effective solutions? > > To which he emphatically answered, in a questioning voice: > > > [@](#): > > > > “Do you think Greenpeace is going to advocate for this?!? Is that what you are waiting for?!? Evidentially…” > > In big, bold letters, the challenge was issued: > > > [@](#): > > > > When will you stand up and offer solutions? > [@](#): > > The heading for the conference read, “Restoring the Scientific Method”, meaning, if only the political right could find a different science to the (perceived) broken one that predicts rapid change to the climate in the coming century, then perhaps large-scale, globally effective solutions can be bypassed for more politically convenient policy. This is just not a realistic reaction to the problem. Perhaps a better heading could have been taken from Denning’s final sentence on his last slide: > > > [@](#): > > > > The world needs you to be engaged! ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/507 "2014-02-18T21:18:16Z")
> [@andros](#): > > I just want to know why the researchers who support your argument are automatically more reliable than those who disagree? You have it backwards, and sort of a strawman as well. I don’t have an argument, I challenged the “scientists” who claim the sun hasn’t changed, does not influence the earth’s climate, and insist all warming comes from CO2. Those three things are false, and it’s common knowledge that they are. It’s why textbooks and teachers have used the solar variation to explain the changes of the last two thousand years, by noting the sun changes, and it influences the earth’s climate. It’s the asshats that want to change the story that face the burden of proof. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/508 "2014-02-18T21:30:31Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > You know, just because ‘experts’ say something is true doesn’t make it so. You seem to have forgotten about the ant experts already. 🙂 Or how off the mark you were with the green jobs, not to mention how you ignored the republican moves to prevent their growth. Or the risks for not making and effort now for that matter, one of the Economists Richard Alley consulted was William D. Nordhaus. > **[Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong | William D. Nordhaus](https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/03/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/?pagination=false)** > > The threat of climate change is an increasingly important environmental issue for the globe. At a time when we need to clarify public confusions about the science and economics of climate change, skeptics have muddied the waters. I will describe... > [@](#): > > The first problem is an elementary mistake in economic analysis. The authors cite the “benefit-to-cost ratio” to support their argument. Elementary cost-benefit and business economics teach that this is an incorrect criterion for selecting investments or policies. The appropriate criterion for decisions in this context is net benefits (that is, the difference between, and not the ratio of, benefits and costs). > > This point can be seen in a simple example, which would apply in the case of investments to slow climate change. Suppose we were thinking about two policies. Policy A has a small investment in abatement of CO2 emissions. It costs relatively little (say $1 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $10 billion), for a net benefit of $9 billion. Now compare this with a very effective and larger investment, Policy B. This second investment costs more (say $10 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $50 billion), for a net benefit of $40 billion. B is preferable because it has higher net benefits ($40 billion for B as compared with $9 for A), but A has a higher benefit-cost ratio (a ratio of 10 for A as compared with 5 for B). This example shows why we should, in designing the most effective policies, look at benefits minus costs, not benefits divided by costs. > > This leads to the second point, which is that the authors summarize my results incorrectly. My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums.10 > > My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency would point to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions right now, and not to wait for a half-century. Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place. Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, to provide appropriate incentives for businesses and households to move to low-carbon activities. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/509 "2014-02-18T22:14:10Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > You have it backwards, and sort of a strawman as well. > > I don’t have an argument, I challenged the “scientists” who claim the sun hasn’t changed, does not influence the earth’s climate, and insist all warming comes from CO2. Those three things are false, and it’s common knowledge that they are. > > It’s why textbooks and teachers have used the solar variation to explain the changes of the last two thousand years, by noting the sun changes, and it influences the earth’s climate. > > It’s the asshats that want to change the story that face the burden of proof. The beautiful, wondrous irony of **FXMastermind** accusing someone of having something “backwards”. Haven’t you been called out often enough for making ridiculous, nonsensical and totally incorrect claims? About six times in the past two days, as I recall. And talk about a straw man. No one here – and certainly not I – has ever claimed that “the sun hasn’t changed, does not influence the earth’s climate, and insist all warming comes from CO2.” No one. What I have pointed out is that the scientific understanding of solar variations differs rather markedly from your frankly incompetent other-worldly interpretation of material that you clearly don’t understand, just like you quoted an utterly irrelevant description of seasonal changes in subtropical jet streams in support of your ludicrous and backwards claim about _climate-induce_d changes in _polar_ jets. Frankly you seem to alternate between being completely wrong and just spouting gibberish that makes no sense at all. The statements from the IPCC that I quoted are from the AR5 WG1 assessment which is supported by approximately (at rough count) about 13,440 cited research papers and represents the current state of scientific knowledge on the relevant subject matter, and while neither the science nor the IPCC is perfect, I would consider them and the several thousand scientists who contribute to them a good deal more credible than the track record of your opinions so far. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/510 "2014-02-18T23:32:19Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (Bold added to emphasize cherry picking) > > The IPCC and it’s feeder organizations are looking for an explanation as to why the global temp has “paused”. Have you explained your reasoning to them? Maybe they really don’t need to be spending all the time and effort looking for something that you so easily dismiss? What did I “dismiss”? What “cherry-picking”? I’m pointing out that it’s still warming (does anyone seriously disagree with that?) but that for awhile now the temperature gradient has been less than in the latter half of the 20th century overall (does anyone seriously disagree with that?). The latest research findings retain basically the same estimates of climate sensitivity as before – since climate equilibrium takes millennia, not decades, needless to say the scientific evidence for changes in ECS estimates would have to be a lot more substantive than a ten-year temperature trend. Denialists would like us to believe that the past 10 or 15 years is indicative of some monumentally transformational new trend. It isn’t. It’s just barely long enough that there’s some merit in trying to identify the signature of a dominant heat sink, if only to improve the short-term performance of climate models. And I say “heat sink” because there’s been no corresponding change in the radiative transfer balance that would otherwise account for it. P.S.- what are these “feeder organizations” of which you speak? Perhaps you refer to the 14,000 or so research papers that the IPCC has drawn on for its current WG1 assessment? Are climate scientists now corrupt co-conspirators with the IPCC? Wait – they always have been, right? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2014, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/511 "2014-02-18T23:58:15Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [SoS John Kerry weighs in,](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/16/john-kerry-climate-change_n_4798963.html) FWIW. [Newt Gingrich, on Twitter, demands John “Kerrey” (he misspells the name repeatedly) resign because of his global-warming speech in Indonesia.](http://www.salon.com/2014/02/18/newt_gingrich_demands_on_twitter_that_john_kerrey_step_down_over_global_warming_remarks/) ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/512 "2014-02-19T00:15:48Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [Newt Gingrich, on Twitter, demands John “Kerrey” (he misspells the name repeatedly) resign because of his global-warming speech in Indonesia.](http://www.salon.com/2014/02/18/newt_gingrich_demands_on_twitter_that_john_kerrey_step_down_over_global_warming_remarks/) I think Newt is just upset that climate change has overtaken serial adultery as “the greatest challenge to mankind”, which leaves Newt pretty much dethroned in the realm of Great Causes. Admittedly he personified a relatively unpopular side of serial adultery, but still, he was a major figure there. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/513 "2014-02-19T01:25:42Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I think Newt is just upset that climate change has overtaken serial adultery as “the greatest challenge to mankind”, which leaves Newt pretty much dethroned in the realm of Great Causes. Admittedly he personified a relatively unpopular side of serial adultery, but still, he was a major figure there. 😛 Newt is forgetting what he was saying in 2007: I was aware of it via Barry Bickmore’s long video of Bickmore explaining why his conservatism caused his early dismissal about the issue, and how Bickmore saw the evidence and concluded that it was overwhelming. > **[How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/how-to-avoid-the-truth-about-climate-change/)** > > I gave a talk called “How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change” for the College of Science and Health at Utah Valley University.  For those of you who aren’t familiar with me, … (How to avoid the truth about climate change)(Long) In that presentation made at Utah Valley university, Bickmore showed this clip\*\* about Newt Gingrich agreeing with John Kerry back in 2007\*\*: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/upphPTRr_PE/hqdefault.jpg "Newt Gingrich "The Evidence is Sufficient" on Global Warming") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upphPTRr_PE) > [@](#): > > ``` > KERRY: I’m excited to hear you talk about the urgency — I really am. And given that — albeit you still sort of have a different approach — what would you say to Sen. Inhofe and to others in the Senate who are resisting even the science? What’s your message to them here today? > > GINGRICH: My message I think is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon-loading of the atmosphere. > > KERRY: And to it urgently — and now… > > GINGRICH: And do it urgently. Yes. > > If I can, let me explain partly why this is a very challenging thing to do if you’re a conservative. For most of the last 30 years, the environment has been a powerful emotional tool for bigger government and higher taxes. And therefore, if you’re a conservative, the minute you start hearing these arguments, you know what’s coming next: which is bigger government and higher taxes. > > So even though it may be the right thing to do, you end up fighting it because you don’t want big government and higher taxes. And so you end up in these kinds of cycles. And part of the reason I was delighted to accept this invitation and I’m delighted to be here with Sen. Kerry is I think there has to be a if you will a “green conservatism” — there has to be a willingness to stand up and say alright here’s the right way to solve these as seen by our value system. > > ``` Sadly, I have to conclude that Newt has been marinating in the conservative news bubble for too much. ---
**Author:** ![CatC303](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bc79bd/32.png) [@CatC303](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CatC303)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/514 "2014-02-19T01:50:14Z")
I consider climate change to be the greatest moral issue of all time. We’ve had wars and genocides in which millions and millions have died. Climate change is leading to the end of the earth and the deaths of all life forms. It’s the ultimate tragedy to not work to prevent this. And, why aren’t we doing so? Because the oil and coal and gas companies are the richest companies in the world. And, sadly, they care less about the earth than about their $$$$. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/515 "2014-02-19T01:56:59Z")
Can’t tell if sarcasm or not ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2014, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/516 "2014-03-31T15:36:54Z")
[The IPCC’s new report is out.](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/01/science/earth/climate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1) > [@](#): > > YOKOHAMA, Japan — Climate change is already having sweeping effects on every continent and throughout the world’s oceans, scientists reported on Monday, and they warned that the problem was likely to grow substantially worse unless greenhouse emissions are brought under control. > > The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that periodically summarizes climate science, concluded that ice caps are melting, sea ice in the Arctic is collapsing, water supplies are coming under stress, heat waves and heavy rains are intensifying, coral reefs are dying, and fish and many other creatures are migrating toward the poles or in some cases going extinct. > > The oceans are rising at a pace that threatens coastal communities and are becoming more acidic as they absorb some of the carbon dioxide given off by cars and power plants, which is killing some creatures or stunting their growth, the report found. > > Organic matter frozen in Arctic soils since before civilization began is now melting, allowing it to decay into greenhouse gases that will cause further warming, the scientists said. And the worst is yet to come, the scientists said in the second of three reports that are expected to carry considerable weight next year as nations try to agree on a new global climate treaty ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2014, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/517 "2014-04-01T02:45:59Z")
Has the global temperature actually started climbing again or is the IPCC just hoping it will? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2014, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/518 "2014-04-01T03:01:27Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Has the global temperature actually started climbing again or is the IPCC just hoping it will? [Well, as to that:](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming_denialism#Hey_look.21_There.27s_been_no_global_warming_since_1998) > [@](#): > > **Hey look! There’s been no global warming since 1998** > > One of the most popular claims made against climate science is that there has been “no global warming since 1998,” or even that there has been a pattern of “global cooling” since that year. Denialists who have made this argument include Tim Ball, Nigel Lawson, Fred Singer and Christopher Monckton. The origins of this argument are unclear; perhaps it might have originated in an article by Bob Carter which appeared the Daily Telegraph in 2006.[35] > > This argument fails for several reasons: it only takes into account surface temperatures, and does not deal with oceanic temperatures; it fails to do any sort of trend analysis, and it does not take into account cyclical oscillations or variation. Most importantly, it is one of the finest examples of cherry picking. Classic climate denialism demands that average global temperature measurements must be taken from the peak of the hottest year and measured to the point trough of the coolest year. If the denialists ever picked years either side of 1998 as their start point, the argument would sink faster than the Titanic. This is because globally, 1998 was a record breaking hot year due to a very strong El Nino.[36][37] But, you can read the whole report [here](http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/report/final-drafts/); you tell us. ---
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/519 "2014-04-08T14:24:56Z")
This old information makes the issue really funny. I searched the thread and there has been no mention of dimming. This is hysterical: [- YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQxYmVrSrcI) psik ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/520 "2014-04-08T14:53:41Z")
I mentioned contrails in a different thread, but most people are contrail deniers, so yeah, it won’t matter at all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056.md?page=27)